Thursday, November 15, 2012

A close race in Calgary Centre?

Polls by Forum Research in each of the ridings holding by-elections November 26 caused quite a bit of a stir yesterday. Though two of them showed the incumbent parties well ahead in their traditionally safe ridings, the third showed the Conservatives in danger in their own backyard. What to make of this?

The survey for Durham is the least controversial. It showed Erin O'Toole of the Conservatives well ahead with 42% to 26% for the NDP's Larry O'Connor. Grant Hume of the Liberals was third with 22%. That generally fits in with expectations. Forum last polled Durham (as well as the two other ridings) on October 26, but no shifts of statistical significance have taken place.

The results for Victoria are also relatively unsurprising. Murray Rankin of the NDP led with 47%, while Donald Galloway of the Greens was up six points to 26%. Paul Summerville of the Liberals was third with 14%, while Dale Gann of the Tories had 12% support. The gain for Galloway is outside the margin of error, and certainly an interesting aspect of this race.

But the results in Durham and Victoria don't raise any alarm bells. The results in Calgary Centre do.

Forum found that Joan Crockatt of the Conservatives had dropped 16 points to 32%, putting her only two points ahead of the Liberals' Harvey Locke. His gain of two points is within the margin of error. Chris Turner of the Greens, however, gained 12 points to reach 23%, putting him in a solid third place and in the running. The NDP's Dan Meades was in fourth with 12%.

Is it possible that the Conservatives are neck-and-neck in Fortress Alberta? It is not shocking to see the Liberals at 30% in Calgary. Their provincial counterparts do better in that city and it isn't outlandish to see the Liberals at this level of support considering their province-wide polling at the moment. Having the Greens so high and the Conservatives so low is unusual, and would mean that local factors are seriously at play.

This is plausible, considering some of the stories that have appeared in local media lately. There is the split between the PCs and Wildrose and the fact that Turner is a relatively good candidate for the Greens. Nevertheless, this is Alberta.

It is worth noting the difference in sample sizes between Calgary Centre and the other two. Surveying only 376 people is not huge, and the lower number of respondents suggests that the response rate was quite low in the riding.

Forum uses the IVR method, which can have mixed results. Nate Silver recently calculated that "robodial" polls performed worse than their online and live-caller counterparts in the recent American election, finding an average error of five points for IVR polling compared to 3.5 points for telephone and 2.1 points for online surveys. However, some IVR firms performed well while others were near the bottom. This is actually to be expected - robodialling is the cheapest way to do polling so it is more likely that incompetent polling firms would still take a stab at it. There is more chances that the men will be separated from the boys when it comes to IVR polling than for online and telephone polling, as those methods are much more expensive and non-serious players are less likely to use them.

So where does Forum lie on the spectrum? We actually have some recent by-elections to use as a guide. Forum was active in both Kitchener-Waterloo and Vaughan when those ridings held by-elections in early September. Forum actually did quite well, with an average error of 3.3 points per party (PC, NDP, Liberals, and Greens only) in Kitchener-Waterloo and 1.8 points in Vaughan. In both ridings, Forum made the right call, including the upset NDP victory.

Forum also did well in the three riding polls they released during the provincial Quebec election. They had polled Orford, Saint-François, and Sherbrooke for a local English-language newspaper, and had an average error of two points per party (PQ, PLQ, CAQ, and QS only) in Orford and Sherbrooke and 1.5 points in Saint-François. So far, so good.

But a general rule in polling is that if something looks like an outlier, it probably is. Does the Calgary Centre poll look like an outlier? From the outside looking in, considering the riding's history, it looks like it could be. Locals may have a better clue.

However, while some IVR firms did well in the recent presidential election and Forum has had a string of good riding level polls of late, the method they use appears to be more vulnerable to wild variations between polls.

The Quebec provincial election is a good example of that. Let's look at the variations from poll to poll for the top four parties in the polls done by CROP (using live-callers), Léger Marketing (using an online panel), and Forum (using IVR). For example, if the PQ gained two points and the Liberals lost three points in a poll, while the CAQ and Québec Solidaire held steady, that would be a total variation of five points.

Léger had the most consistent polling, with an average total variation from poll-to-poll of 4.4 points. In one of their polls, all four parties had the same level of support as they did in their previous survey. In their most volatile poll, they had a total of eight points changing between the four parties.

CROP's polling was also consistent, with an average total variation of 5.8 points. Their lowest total change between polls was three points, their highest was nine.

Forum, however, had very inconsistent polling. On average, their numbers shifted by 14 points from one poll to the next. On two occasions the total variation was over 20 points between polls, and only once was the total variation lower than Léger's and CROP's average.

This is not to impugn Forum's accuracy; it is certainly possible (though less likely) that Forum was accurately depicting a volatile race while Léger and CROP were inaccurately suggesting a more stable electorate. But it does raise alarm bells when we see that the vote in Calgary Centre has shifted so radically, considering Forum's recent experience with IVR polling.

In the end, Forum could turn out to be right on the money and Calgary Centre could indeed be a very close race. If another poll emerges we will have a better idea of whether that is the case or not. For the moment, though, it might be better to exercise caution.

Éric, could you perhaps share your thoughts on why exactly IVR polling might tend to produce more volatile results than live-call and online polling? I've noticed Forum's Canada-wide federal polls also seem to have a tendency to be relatively volatile (two polls they conducted this past June being good examples, the first showing a 7-point NDP lead and just 2 weeks later a tie with the CPC), as well as EKOS's whom I believe also uses IVR.

One of my thoughts as to why the Green numbers are high in Victoria and especially Calgary Centre is that both candidates got quite a bit of exposure on Reddit. Both Galloway and C-C Green candidate Chris Turner recently did "ask me anything" features on the site.

I believe that another reason for Donald Galloway being so popular is that Elizabeth May being right next door to Victoria and hugely popular here. If it were her clone running instead of Donald, I would be surprised not to see her win.

On a whole other note, Éric, I just watched last week's At Issue panel on The National during which they discussed the results of the U.S. election, including an exchange on Nate Silver's notoriety and what Canada's polling scene might learn from him, and I must say I was absolutely shocked and dismayed that neither Chantal, Andrew or Bruce brought up ThreeHundredEight! Keep at it, Éric, you'll become famous sooner or later! ;)

I don't think Silver would do markedly better here in Canada. One of the tests he writes about in his book about forecasting is that, after the fact, do you look back and say to yourself that, right or wrong, you made the best forecast you could with the information you had? Alberta and Quebec were rough elections for forecasters and pollsters, but looking back the answer to that question is 'yes'. I don't know how Silver could have much better with what was available.

Crockatt is highlighting the growing divide between the federal Conservatives and the Alberta PCs. While Redford is publicly supporting Crockatt, it's widely known that Crockatt and Redford do not see eye to eye.

Also, Crockatt is widely believed to have been responsible for a very long strike at the Calgary Herald newspaper than eventually broke the union. Progressives don't like her at all.

Anon 12:19, if Redford publicly said she supported the Liberal candidate, Harper will give her and her government a world of political pain. She's just trying to defend herself and her government so Harper will still be loyal to the Alberta PCs instead of going against them and supporting the Wildrose. I think her true political views lie closer to Locke than Crockatt.

The Liberals never had any wishful thinking at all, Anon 12:19. If they did, they won't be seriously campaigning as they are right now. Remember, this riding never elected the Canadian Alliance in 2000, they elected PC Joe Clark because many constituents are against the Alliance's extreme social conservative policies. Since the PCs don't exist anymore, you can surely expect the PCers to move to the Liberals.

One thing I am noticing in all these recent Forum polls is how much the respondents are skewed to aged 55+. To meet the actual census demographics a lot of weighting has to be going which means the margin of error is higher than reported.

Working with the demographics of Victoria from the 2006 census, when the age weighting is applied the effective margin of error for that November 12th poll becomes more like +-8.

This also raises another issue - the census demographics are not the demographics of the people that are going to vote. We have little good data to be certain when the demographics of the voting public will look like in the by-elections. This is an issue for the Greens in Victoria because their highest support is among aged 34 and lower, which are close to 30% of the population but only 8.6% of the respondents. If the poll was weighted by age, which seems to be the case, but younger people chose not to vote, the poll could be overstating the results the Greens will see on November 26th.

It could very likely explain some of the reasons why some of the polling is so far off the actual results. I do think that the voting public is not the same as the census demographics but I do not have enough data to prove this.

I will be deeply surprised if anyone other than the Conservative wins Calgary Centre. I don't have a moustache to offer to shave off like David Axelrod did for Pennsylvania, but I would be just shocked.

It's not that surprising. The Alberta Liberals managed to take a whole swathe of seats in Calgary during provincial by-elections before the 2008 provincial general election. They even managed to take Calgary-Elbow in a by-election, the former seat of Ralph Klein and the current seat of Alison Redford.

The Alberta Liberals have 3 Calgary seats (a rather small swathe). Calgary-Mountainview located entirely within Calgary North Centre, Calgary-McCall in the far Northeast and Calgary-Buffalo which is located within the federal riding of Calgary-Centre.

It's not that far fetched, the beltline and core areas that make up most of the Calgary-Centre riding were fairly influential in driving support for Mayor Nenshi, who was certainly the most progressive of the mayoral candidates. You have a very large number of younger voters in the riding with all the condo development, and you have a couple residential areas that are turning over from elderly home owners to younger families.

You also have a lot of oil executives and the Albertan penchant for either not showing up for a vote or voting Conservative out of habit.

I'd be surprised if the riding didn't go blue, but I honestly think Green is under polling, and could take their second riding in Canada.

Kensingtonian, if you have read my comments correctly, I was referring to the Liberal wins in Calgary in the 2007 provincial by-elections. I wasn't referring to the results of the last provincial election.

I think Kensington was far more influential in electing Nenshi than the Beltline but, I'm biased (as an aside I voted for Nenshi and had to wait in line an 1.5 hours to cast my vote at Sunnyside school).

My sense is that if people are going to go out on a limb (I agree it will likely go Tory) it will be a green limb-go big or go home it's the Cowtown way!

Perhaps an interesting side bit here, is that the CPC (calling themselves Canada's Conservatives) are running masses of attack ads aimed at the Mulcair NDP on a Vancouver radio station specializing in music from the late 60s to early 80s (Rock 101). I imagine they're hoping to influence the voters of that age group, who most often tend to bother to vote. Doesn't seem to be working though. It's getting irritating, as is the CPC in general.

The CRTC is a regulatory body; if the add was from a foreign organisation perhaps they could become involved. While a large aspect of the CRTC's purview includes content they do not usually approve individual adds or programs but, rather overall station content.

I agree with The Friendly Giant it is a free country. I do not recall opponents of the NDP complaining that Layton's death and state funeral, covered around the clock by various media groups, constituted excess or illegal advertising.

Trust me, the ads are all over Vancouver radio, it's not just your station.I don't really think it's all that effective a spot either, more than anything it probably just annoys people that the ads are running instead of music.

The apostheosis of Layton moved from a legitimate news item into mostly free propaganda. Suggesting the CRTC become involved is petty, spiteful and demonstrates a desire to play by a different set of rules.

Anon 11:53, Layton's death was not free propaganda. I'm appalled that you would suggest that an event which involved a statesman who has died from cancer is propaganda. Layton surely doesn't deserve this comparison. As much as he is a public figure, his death is a personal matter, not a public one. It was the media and the public themselves that chose to cover his funeral and morn his passing, not his own decision.

But what we have here is the CPC practically filling up radio stations with ads. The stations have no control whatsoever with the content of these ads being aired, and not mentioning that it's taking away the opportunity of others who want to use these spots to air their own ads. This certainly constitutes a complaint to the CRTC.

And the fact that the media chose to cover Layton's death around the clock wasn't a political decision influenced by the NDP, it was a network decision. And it did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it was independent journalism, it did not take away anyone else's freedom of speech, and it certainly did not take away ad spots. It also wasn't shown around-the-clock, the media made room for other news as well. The CPC is doing the exact opposite, of influencing the media to air their propaganda to the public to the detriment of others. Kensingtonian and Anon 11:53, you are simply misguided.

A free country means equal opportunity to express you rights. What the CPC is doing is taking away the rights of other parties and individuals from speaking on the air. They are making it whichever party has the most money get to say whatever they want on air for however long as they want. There are rules in Britain that ban parties from advertising on air except for specific slots for a specific time. It's time that rules comes to Canada as well.

The CPC is buying advertising! You do not have a Charter Right to advertising! The CPC are taking away noone's rights! The Charter, as you obviously do not know, applies only to governments not individuals.

If other parties do not like their lack of advertising all they need do is buy some air time for themselves. If they wish to displace the Tory adds offer the stations more money and they may decide to break their contracts with the CPC. You opinions are nothing less than state censorship!

The Charter applies to individuals. This is what the charter says about fundamental freedoms:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.

Note it says 'everyone'. I suppose a lot of Canadians would be angry if their government has more rights than them, which is certainly not the case.

And it wouldn't be state censorship because the government itself is airing these ads/state propaganda. If the government doesn't want to make things fair for all advertisers then they are breaking rules.

And the problem is, other parties don't have more money than the CPC. So their voice is being drowned out because they don't have money. Talk about a dictatorship.

And it also says everyone have freedom of press and other media of communication. Press includes advertising, so Charter certainly gives rights to advertising.

Anon's opinions isn't state censorship because the state itself is airing these ads/propaganda. The CRTC makes its decisions independent of state influence. I think his opinion is that ads shouldn't be granted based on how much money an organization has, because it takes away other's ability to advertise (and to communicate, essentially) if they don't have as much money as the organization.

I am sorry you are mis-reading the Charter: The Charter guarantees that government will not interfere with those liberties you have just mentioned. Not as Anon states that one has a right to buy advertising time. Ergo, the Charter applies only to government since, it is impossible to raise a Charter challenge against an individual.

The Charter limits the ability of governments to infringe upon the rights of Canadians. The Charter does not give government rights. This is because the Crown has in a theoretical sense at least unlimited rights and powers which are only diluted or limited by Acts of Parliament. This supremacy became nearly complete through the Act of Supremacy whereby the Church of England separated from Rome making the Monarch both the political and spiritual head of England and is an obvious conclusion to an institution that has divine providence.

We need to make a difference between the Government and the Conservative Party. The adds are being run by "Canada's Conservatives" not the Government of Canada. At present we do not know if whoever is paying for the adds is a Tory member or supporter or if it is the Conservative party itself (I should state I heard the adds were actually more focused in a round about way toward the provincial NDP. The idea being that if federal numbers declined provincial numbers would follow. I am not stating the BC Liberals have a hand in these adverts but, I heard off-hand a connection exists).

Other parties not having money is hardly the CPC's fault. That is the way our society works-money is the most common medium of exchange. The Tories are playing a war of attrition; make your opposition needlessly spend money outside an election so they will be broke during the campaign.

Perth, nice explanation. I thought the ads are the economic action plan ads ran by the "Government of Canada" not "Canada's Conservatives". Sorry for my misunderstanding.

And I would like to go into detail. I'm not misreading the Charter, I am stating that it applies to individuals, but it can only be interpreted by the courts, not by individuals or the government. The courts are independent of the government, they are responsible for the law, in which was created by the government. The government is indirectly related to the Charter in that sense.

The Charter does not apply to individuals-only governments (but not all governments). An individual can not launch a Charter case against another individual. Charter challenges can only be levelled against governments. Same sex marriage is a good example; the Courts did not rule A and B had a right to marry-they ruled the law as currently written (previously written in a contemporary sense)was discriminatory and allowed for heterosexuals to have a higher status than gay people through marriage.

The Courts are independent in a sense from Government but, they are not wholly separate from it. Judges like prime ministers or premiers are appointed by the Crown. Courts are not responsible for the Law-they interpret the law and legislation. On occasion they do re-write laws or strike down laws but, when so doing almost always give legislatures a year to re-write the offending clause or law. The jurisprudence is clear: the peoples' representatives should write law not the Courts.

As with the last Alberta election, we are in the twilight zone where polls actually influence behaviour! I would argue that a poll like this may actually influences strategic voting behaviour in a byelection, particularly in a riding that has shown itself to be prone to strategic voting.

I looked into how the vote shifted in the last provincial election. Provincially the federal riding is divided into four; Calgary-Currie is Premier Redford's riding. Wild Rose picked up 20 points from the PC's between 2008 and 2012; yet the PC's picked up 10-30 pts from the Libs depending on the riding, with the PC's picking up a seat from the Libs.

Liberal and PC voters have shown that they are willing to vote strategically here against right wing parties. The man who engineered this shift for Redford is Stephen Carter, who now works for the federal Liberals (specifically, for Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay, who announced her candidacy in Calgary this week). Carter appears to have his ear to the ground in Calgary-Centre.

I'm not sure I'd bet on the Libs here, but you'd have to give me very narrow odds if I was to bet on the Cons.

Looks Calgary's popular mayor is putting some pressure on Crockatt. I doubt "post-partisan" Nenshi will openly support a candidate, but he would rather have a Liberal or Green representing Calgary Centre.

Calgary Centre will be an extremely close riding and it all depends on the turnout. I would bet on the Tories winning it, but the Liberals have a very good chance. I think the high Green vote will help the Liberals and not hurt them. The Green support seems like it is coming from dissatisfied Tory voters.

Overall, it is a huge morale boost for the Liberals if they win this riding. Whether they win this or come close, we can see the Liberals taking a big interest in Alberta in the years to come.

As a former Tory voter who now votes Green it is simple - Green's have conservative economic policies while the Conservatives have horrid ones. Greens believe in using taxes to capture external costs (ie: pollution that affects others), Greens believe in smaller government overall, simplier tax systems (fewer tax breaks) vs the Conservatives wanting a more complex system, in keeping the government out of our private lives (fewer drug laws for examples vs CPC wanting more of those).

The Conservatives moved away from me, with social right wing policies instead of economic ones. The Greens moved towards me, clearing out 'big govt' and replacing with 'smart govt'. Any economic conservative who reads the policies of the two parties will shift to Green.

No surprise whatsoever, I said montths ago that Calagary center was within reach for the Liberals if 1)Justin Trudeau formally entered the leadership race and 2) they nominated a reasonably well known candidate (I put forward the name Dave Bronconnier)... It is one of 3 ridings in Alberta where I'd give anyone but the Tories a shot. The other 2 are in Redmonton.Calgary Center was the riding that Joe Clark won in 2000, over the CA, at a tiome when PC hopes were fading fast.

No, Joe Clark won because the electorate was opposed to the extreme right-wing social conservative policies of the Canadian Alliance. Personally, the electorate didn't vote for Clark because he was a former PM, and how he was part of the government which brought in the GST, Meech Lake, and Charlottetown Accord, all of which were unpopular with the people in Calgary Centre. They were votes for the PCs in 2000, not for their candidate.

Obviously you were not there in 2000. People voted for Joe 1. because he was a local boy. 2. because as a former PM he had clout most MPs do not. 3. because "progressive" voters left the NDP and Liberals and voted for Clark. 4. many people realised that if the PCs were to survive Clark needed to be in the House of Commons. 5. Stockwell Day and his dinosaur and Niagara fall comments hurt the Alliance brand.

Believe me they were votes for Joe Clark as much as votes for the Progressive Conservatives-I know I was there!

Kensingonian, the same could happen in 2012. People realize that 1. The Liberal MP is also a local boy. 2. A Calgary Liberal MP will have more clout than a faceless NDP or Liberal MP from Ontario or Quebec, or a hardly-known Tory MP from Alberta. 3. Because progressive voters left the CPC for the Liberals. 4. Many people realize if the Liberals were to survive, they needed to win more seats in the House of Commons. 5. Crockatt and her extreme right views hurt the Conservative brand.

Believe me, in 2000, there were more votes for Joe Clark because of the progressive conservative policies he believed in and the Alliance policies he was against rather than his personality. I know, I was there!

They voted for Joe Clark because they agreed with his views and policies, which are also the views and policies of the PCs! They voted for him because he was a Tory and has a chance to win in that riding! The people who disliked what Joe did in government had no choice but to vote for him because they wanted change! Read my comment carefully, Kensington, the underlying reason Calgary Centre voted for PC is because they agree with their policies, Joe Clark simply amplified it.

Calgary-Centre will remain Tory-we are all making too much from one favourable Liberal poll. By-elections typically get 30% turnout those who exercise their franchise usually fall within demographics favourable to the Conservatives.

KW had a number of polls indicating a surge in NDP support both locally and provincewide. In addition KW is a marginal Tory seat whereas CC should be a safe seat. I stand by my previous statement; we need corroborating polls before we conclude CC is a competitive seat or a three way race.

I think Crockett has likely hurt her cause by her non-participation in debates and safe and lacklustre campaign. Crockett has given the appearance of taking voters for granted.

Two polls have now being released that shows a statistical tie between the Tories and Liberals in Calgary Centre. Oh, and Calgary Centre is not a safe seat. The Canadian Alliance took it for granted in 2000, and they lost that seat to the PCs.

Calgary Centre is a safe conservative seat. Clark was a Tory! The riding has been held by conservatives since 1972! In the last election the Tories took nearly 60% of the vote! In 2000 conservative parties took 84% of the vote. You need to reference the difference between a safe and marginal seat. I would note that all polls thus far still have Crockett in the lead even if it is a statistically insignificant.

In addition it would be helpful if you toned down the partisan spin, most people recognize it for what it is-wishful thinking on your part!

Kensingtonian, what would be the point of a pseudonym if you can just make one up and claim that to be your name? It doesn't matter if you post as Anonymous or a name you make up, no one believes that's who you are anyway.

Kensingtonian, it's sad that you believe in the notion of a "safe seat". All of the federal PC seats in Alberta before the 1993 election are considered "safe" seats. Look what happened after the election. And you are suggesting that you need a whole province to swing towards another party in order to win Calgary Centre. I need to remind you that people vote differently in by-elections than in general elections. In by-elections people vote for the candidate, in general elections people vote for the government.

Kensingtonian, more people vote for the candidate in by-elections than in general elections, where more people vote for which party to form government. And you should stop stalking a poster on these comments just to trample on their opinion and to assert yours. We all know your opinion, and we all have our own opinion as well.

The merged Alliance and PC did worse in 2004 than the two numbers from 2000 put together. And the Liberals managed to gain 17 points in that riding in the 2004 election. You can't do what Kensingtonian says, that Alliance and PC percentages added together equals Tory support. It's not as simple as that.

And K, you should stop infriging on a person's right to anonymity on internet by making them get a pseudonym. The website allows you to post as Anon and people have every right to do so. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Eric, not me.

And K, it's far easier to see your comments are putting a spin on things because every sentence you post favors the Tories. I was just stating the statistical tie between Tories and Liberals, and not expressing any preference to either one of them. Please stop making false accusations.

Both of you should have respect for each other. In many cases, you, Kensingtonian, should obvious give respect for Anon.

Anyway, it's obvious that Anon 15:14 is hopeful. So please show some respect and don't take away someone elses opinion by saying its a delusion. Ultimaly only the Anonymous poster knows how he truly feels, so it's wrong to insult someone personally like that, Kensingtonian.

Kensingtonian, what you are saying is wrong. I am hopeful, and definitely not deluded. You can't claim to know how I feel because you aren't me. Just like how I never said that you, the Tories, and Greens are deluded. We'll see who wins this by-election in the end, until then, please read the rules on the bottom of the page that says "Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, and politicians." I apologize if I broke any rules, and so must you.

A new Forum Research poll was released on Sunday! Reported are 35% support for Joan Crockatt, to Liberal's Harvey Locke 30%, 25% for Chris Turner of the Greens, & lastly 8% for NDP’s Dan Meades. The margin of error is 5%, which might mean not much has changed since the poll a week ago also by Forun Research. The MoE however also means that it is possible for Chris Turner & Joan Crockatt to be statistically tied!

I'm sorry Eric, but I didn't see the request at the bottom because I was making a reply in the middle of the page, and the request wasn't at that place. For that I apologize.

Now that I have seen the requests, which also says not to use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters and parties. I admit some of my comments broke that rule. But on the other hand, Kensingtonian also broke that rule by attacking me and my opinion by making insults, a lot of them personal ones. I apologize for the wrongs that I have done. But I feel you are only stating that I've done the wrong thing and not the other guy. So will you, Eric, admit that Kensingtonian has broken the rules as well? I will consider reporting this blog to Blogger if you don't.

There are dozens of Anonymous comments here, I have not singled anyone out. I will certainly admit that many of the comments here were less than civil, and that I had to delete even more than were posted.

I try my best to be fair, but I do not always have the time to read every comment in detail.

Thanks for the response Eric. In any case I have shown Kensingtonian's comments to a lot of people I know, and they are shocked that a Calgarian would display such attitudes to others, especially during a tight by-election, where we should be working together to give the best for our city.

Anyway, until this website becomes civil, I will no longer visit this website because a polling website can't be credible when you have so many personal and partisan attacks posted in the comments to individuals and parties who don't share the same opinion, which made readers like me feel worse as a result. But you have inspired me with your analysis and I will be analyzing polls on my own.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.